The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to promote price stability and ensure full employment. It has yet to achieve either. It has set an annual inflation target of 2 percent, yet the consumer price index
rose only 0.1 percent in May after falling 0.4 percent in April, and it
was up only 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in May. The
Fed’s preferred metric, the personal consumption expenditures price
index excluding food and energy, rose just 1.1 percent in June from a
year earlier.

Exactly when does Barack focuses on jobs?

He's focused on ObamaCare (over and over and over) and on immigration and on NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden and on helping Big Business. But he just won't focus on creating jobs.

Which is why we're in the situation we're in now. And now he is lame duck for real and and probably can't get through the works projects that FDR used to create jobs in the midst of the Great Depression.

The economy and the lack of jobs will be the failures that Barack will be remembered for. Along with his illegal spying and his wars, Barack will be remembered as something akin to Herbert Hoover.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Monday:

Monday, July 22, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, prison attacks and
breaks dominate the news out of Iraq, this despite a Basra
assassination, Moqtada al-Sadr calls out the violence, Barack's war on
the press and whistle-blowers Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning continues,
Helen Thomas passes away, and more.

How bad are things in Iraq today? So bad that the issue was actually raised to State Dept press spokesperson Jen Psaki in today's briefing:

QUESTION: Iraq?QUESTION: You don’t think that you’re trying to avoid anything here?MS. PSAKI: I think this has become a game, so I’m moving on to the next question.QUESTION: Yeah. Insurgents in Iraq attacked two prisons during
the weekend and freed more than 1,000 prisoners, most of them from
al-Qaida. Are you aware of that? And to what extent you are concerned?MS. PSAKI: I’m not – I haven’t seen this report that you’re referring to, but I’m happy to look into it.QUESTION: Well, still on Iraq.

QUESTION: Jen --MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. This morning, I saw Mr. Martin Kobler,
the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General in
Iraq. It’s his last day. He paints a very bad picture of what’s going on
in Iraq. And the feeling – not from him, but from others – I’m getting
that the United States actually is not involved. It’s looking sort of
neutrally at all this violence that’s going on.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, I would refute that, Said. We are
deeply concerned by the levels of violence. We’re encouraged that many
political and religious leaders have taken a strong stance against this
violence, which is very important, and that they’ve continued to explore
ways to address ongoing political and security issues. We welcome
recent political developments, including the reciprocal visits in Erbil
and Baghdad between Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi Kurdistan Region
President Barzani, discussions by Iraqi leaders to address issues
arising from recent protests in western Iraq, and legislative
initiatives in the Iraqi parliament.In terms of our involvement, U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington
remain intensely engaged with senior Iraqi leaders to support their
efforts to resolve differences through direct dialogue and the political
process. The level of our engagement is reflected even recently by
calls placed last week by Vice President Biden to Iraqi leaders, and
we’ll continue to work with leaders to overcome the threat of terrorism
and their efforts to bring justice to those who continue to perpetrate*
such despicable crimes.

We should all be very disturbed that the State Dept spokesperson had no
idea on Monday afternoon about the prison attacks Sunday evening. Iraq
has seen many prison breaks in the last year. But yesterday saw two attacks which were rather spectacular:

Meanwhile in Iraq, NINA notes
that unidentified gunmen began "simultaneously attacking the Taji and
Abu Ghraib prisons" with gun fire, "improvised explosive devices and RPG
launchers." They also report that the military and the police ("supported with helicopters") were surrounding the prisons. Jack Phillips (Epoch Times) adds:Al Jazeera reported
on its front page that the attack was taking place on Sunday night, and
involved assailants with rocket-propelled grenades, but it did not
offer more details.The Associated Press also confirmed there were clashes at the prison on Sunday.Charles Lister, with IHS Jane’s Terrorism & Insurgency Centre–an intelligence organization, wrote that a
“senior ISIS commander claims Abu Ghraib & Taji prison attacks have
been a success. Convoys of escaped prisoners now en route to
‘safety.’” At around 6 p.m., Lister added that “several jihadi sources
claim fighting is over at Abu Ghraib.”

Again, how does the US State Dept, spending billions in Iraq, not know of the events from Sunday. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes, "Security forces battled militants outside two major penitentiaries near
the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and thwarted prison breaks, the Justice
Ministry said Monday." Press TV notes, "Initial reports said the attacks on prisons had been foiled, and no casualties had been reported." But today, AFP reports, "Militants attacked two Iraqi prisons including the notorious Abu Ghraib
in a bid to free inmates, sparking all-night clashes in which at least
41 people, officials said on Monday." France 24 adds, "Commentors on micro-blogging website Twitter, including some accounts
apparently operated by jihadists, claimed thousands of prisoners had
escaped." National Iraqi News Agency reports
on a press conference in Baghdad today in which MP Hakim al-Zamili
declaring "that between 500 to one thousand prisoners escaped from Abu
Ghraib prison."

What prompted the attacks? No one knows at this point. But Saturday, as NINA reported,
Nouri had the army raid Badush Prison at dawn in Nineveh Province and
that a prison source "explained that the inspections included all
sections including the women's and events' prison, noting that those
forces warned prisoners from the use of any of these arms and machines
and mobile devices inside the compound. The source did not mention if
these things had been confiscated or not." It is possible that the raid
on Badush Prison prompted the raids (out of concern for those in the
two prisons -- out of concern that future plans would be foiled,
whatever).

Jane Arraf: And really, it's the scope of the targets, the widening
of the targets, and the coordinated nature of the attacks such as the
eleven car bombs that hit the capital last night that really have people
worried. When you think of the amount of coordination that would have
to go into that, these security checks they bypassed, the sheer amount
of money and then the suicide bombers who have been blowing themselves
up lately, it all really points, according to most Iraqis, to an
alarming rise in violence here that security forces can't handle.

Ahlul Bayt News Agency reports,
"The main causes of terrorism in Iraq and other regional nations are
not ignorant or jobless people, but the Global Arrogance, headed by the
US and Israeli regime that have extremism under their control and use it
in their own favors, Sheikh Khalid al-Mala told al-Alam on Monday."

All Iraq News notes
cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr is calling for the people to
protest the government's lack of response to the violence and sttes,
"The silence of the people concerning the terrorist bombings, the people
of other countries would revolt and call for toppling the government if
their countries witnessed such bombings. We witness strange silence
over these bombings and we cannot grant the government another chance to
improve the situation."

Turning to England, Richard Dearlove is the former head of the UK's MI6. RT reports
that he has documented "new details behind the 'dodgy dossier'" used in
England to make the case for war on Iraq and, while he had intended his
writing to be published after his death, he's now considering
publishing it sooner "depending on what Chilcot publishes." Chilcot
refers to John Chilcot who heads the Iraq Inquiry which is supposed to
publish a report at some point (the report should have been published
some time ago). Andrew Mason (Iraq Inquiry Digest) observes, "As can be seen here and here,
much of Dearlove’s evidence given in private to the Iraq Inquiry was
heavily redacted before being published on their website." Press TV adds, "According to the Daily Mail,
sources close to Sir Richard say he accepts the inaccuracy of some MI6’s
information on Iraq WMDs and that he believes the inquiry’s chairman
Sir John Chilcot should investigate misleading statements by former
British PM Tony Blair and his chief spokesperson and strategist Alastair
Campbell about WMDs."

Turning to Barack Obama's war on the press. Friday brought the news the Fourth Circuit of Appeals was bowing to the administration's insistence that New York Times
reporter James Risen must reveal his source. Confidentiality is
important to reporting. Sources may have many reasons for not going
public. Recognizing that, most news outlets have policies regarding
confidential sources. For example, this is the New York Times' policy:

The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper
could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When
we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their
reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation – as
much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point
of view on the issue under discussion.
In routine interviewing – that is, most of the interviewing we do –
anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting,
anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting
of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may
face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us. Similarly they will
occur in approaches to authoritative officials in government who, as a matter of
policy, do not speak for attribution. On those occasions, we may use an offer of
anonymity as a wedge to make telephone contact, get an interview or learn a fact.
In such a case, the reporter should press the source, after the conversation, to
go on the record with the newsworthy information that has emerged.
Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation
to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement
and motivation of the source – in particular, whether the source has firsthand
knowledge of the facts.
In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect
that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading.
If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is
essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole
story.
We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available.
Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving
us — or they must be the authorized representatives of an authority, known to us,
who has such knowledge.
We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very
act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan
attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed,
they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and
editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a
speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless
to a reader who cannot assess the source.
Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable
comment appear portentous.

The Confidential Source program is an important tool used by the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA).1 DEA officials state that without
confidential sources, the DEA could not effectively enforce the controlled
substances laws of the United States. Confidential sources come from all
walks of life and are significant to initiating investigations and providing
information or services to facilitate arrests and seizures of drugs and cash.
According to the DEA, it has approximately 4,000 active confidential sources
at any one time.
Although confidential sources can be critical to an investigation, special
care must be taken to carefully evaluate and closely supervise their use.
Confidential sources can be motivated by many factors, including fear,
financial gain, avoidance of punishment, competition, and revenge;
therefore, the credibility of a source must be balanced against the
information they provide.

In a clear case of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, confidential sources are
a-okay with the White House . . . when it's the Justice Dept's
confidential sources. Remember that. Of the ruling compelling Risen to
reveal his source, Norman Solomon (ZNet) explains:

The part of the First
Amendment that prohibits “abridging the freedom … of the press” is now
up against the wall, as the Obama administration continues to assault
the kind of journalism that can expose government secrets.

Last Friday the
administration got what it wanted -- an ice-cold chilling effect -- from
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on the case of New York Times reporter James Risen. The court “delivered
a blow to investigative journalism in America by ruling that reporters
have no First Amendment protection that would safeguard the
confidentiality of their sources in the event of a criminal trial,” the Guardianreported.

The Executive Branch fought for that ruling -- and is now celebrating. “We
agree with the decision,” said a Justice Department spokesman. “We are
examining the next steps in the prosecution of this case.” The Risen
case, and potentially many others, are now under the ominous shadow of
the Appeals Court’s pronouncement: “There
is no First Amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified,
that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify … in criminal
proceedings.”

At the Freedom of the Press Foundation, co-founder Trevor Timm callsthe
court ruling “the most significant reporter’s privilege decision in
decades” and asserts that the court “eviscerated that privilege.” He’s
not exaggerating. Press freedom is at stake.

Journalism can't be done with only approved leaks from an
administration. To be informed and inform the people, the press
requires a variety of sources including whistle-blowers. Attempts to
strip whistle-blowing out of the process are attempts to destroy an
informed public and, without that, then you have no democracy. RT adds:

Next Risen will be expected to testify in the Espionage Act-case
against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official accused of
disclosing details about a Clinton administration plan to put
faulty nuclear weapon blueprints to Iran in an effort to slow
down their race to acquiring a nuke. He previously said he’d
refuse to speak of his source, however, which would now open up
the possibility of being held in contempt of court.
Sterling is one of seven persons accused by President Barack
Obama of spying under the Espionage Act, a World War One-era
legislation that has previously been used only three times before
this administration began targeting leakers.
Judge Roger Gregory, the only justice to vote in the minority,
said compelling Risen to testify was a “sad” decision that posed
a serious threat to investigative journalism, the Times reported.

The Espionage Act is one of the most ridiculous on the books. It
largely exists to try to frighten people from speaking out against
conscription. As History.com notes, the legislation "essentially made
it a crime for any person to convey information intended to interfere
with the US armed forces prosectuion of the war effort [. . .]." PBS' American Experience explains,
"It authorized stiff fines and prison terms of up to 20 years for
anyone who obstructed the military draft of encouraged 'disloyalty'. [. .
.] The Espionage Act was evidently effective in prosecuting the I.W.W.
and any others opposing conscription. In 1918, it was used to send
labor leader and former presidential candidate Eugene Debs to jail for a
decade, because of a speech he delivered." How telling that it would
become the go-to law for Barack's lousy administration. 'B-b-but,
Barack cares about the press! Why, just last month, he was proposing a
shield law!' As the editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News reminds today:The Obama administration's
born-again belief in a free press was in response to a public backlash.
Revelations that the FBI had secretly seized phone records and emails
from reporters at the Associated Press and Fox News infuriated
journalists, Congress and the public, prompting Obama to ask Holder for a
policy review. The new policy would revive former practices of
notifying media outlets when communications are being sought and would
bar the use of search warrants to seize a reporter's records unless the
reporter is under investigation for something other than his or her news
gathering.

The ruling reinforces the US government’s assault on democratic
rights. It is part of a wider campaign to intimidate or imprison
anyone—journalists included—who attempts to make public information
about the secret and illegal actions of the US government.The
Obama administration appealed a federal court ruling in favor of Risen
to the Fourth Circuit appeals court, which is based in Virginia,
underscoring the ruthlessness of its drive to silence all would-be
leakers and whistle-blowers. Friday’s ruling comes in the midst of
Washington’s international campaign to capture former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who has exposed details of the US
government’s illegal spying operations against the entire US population
and much of the rest of the world, and try him for espionage.

The NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden remains in Russia. Martin Walker (UPI) reports
the European Union is "already calling him to testify, along with
National Security
Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander and two other NSA whistle-blowers,
Tom Drake and William Binney, in hearings designed to lead to new data
privacy rules and data-sharing agreements between Europe and the United
States." Should he agree to testify, would he be able to make it there
safely? Or would the US government again force a plane down in an
attempt to seize him?

QUESTION: Okay, that would – so that would be – all right. So
anyway, the EU foreign ministers have all come out with a statement
calling for his release. Is that – does the United States support that
position now that it’s more than just the Germans?MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve stated our position on this and I don’t have anything more on it new for you today.QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask again my question from, what, 10 days ago?MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: Why is it taboo for you to say from the podium that you would like to see President – former President Morsy released?MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything more for you on it, Matt.

QUESTION: So how do you define him? Is he deposed, is he former?MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s – I think Lesley was jumping in here.

[. . .]

QUESTION: Do you have an update on
Snowden’s whereabouts? And also, the Russian Interior Ministry is saying
look, you want extradition, we want extradition, we’ve got two guys,
terrorists, who are living in the United States and we want them back.
And the U.S. doesn’t do anything, therefore this is double standards. Do
you have anything on those? I can give you their names if you want.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. I’m happy to look into that. I mean, I
think our policy on this has been that Mr. Snowden has been convict – or
has been accused I should say, sorry – of three felonies. We believe he
should be returned to the United States. We – the – my last
understanding of this, and I believe this is up to date, is that he
remains in the transit lounge of the airport there and that Russia still
has the opportunity to do the right thing and return him to the United
States, where he can face justice.QUESTION: Are there continuing talks, or is it just kind of the status quo?MS. PSAKI: They’re continuing. We remain in contact. I don't
have any update for you on the last conversation. But this is obviously
an issue that’s a priority and we remain in contact with – at the
appropriate level.QUESTION: Jen --QUESTION: Just can I --QUESTION: -- that’s was a very interesting Freudian slip you
just made there. Is it the Administration’s position that Mr. Snowden
is, in fact, guilty because he admitted to leaking this material?MS. PSAKI: I think I corrected myself and said he was accused, which still warrants his return to the United States --QUESTION: Yeah. But you started out by saying “convicted.”MS. PSAKI: -- so he can face justice.QUESTION: Okay.MS. PSAKI: I corrected myself midstream.QUESTION: So it’s not the Administration’s view that he is – right now that he is guilty of any crime?MS. PSAKI: Well, you’re familiar with how our justice system works. I don’t think we need to do an education on that here.QUESTION: No. I just want to make sure --MS. PSAKI: The status is that he has been accused --QUESTION: You --MS. PSAKI: -- of three felonies --QUESTION: Yes.MS. PSAKI: -- and we believe he should be returned to the United States.QUESTION: And tried for that?MS. PSAKI: Correct.QUESTION: But you do not assume or you do not believe right now that he is necessarily guilty.MS. PSAKI: You are familiar with how our justice system works, Matt.

There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States.
All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has
undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information,
which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret
that matters, which is the United States government's serial violation
of the fourth amendment to the constitution through its collection of
personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without
any probable cause or search warrant.That makes Snowden a
whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the
federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against US national security, but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.

At Truthout, it's noted
just how ridiculous the US government is looking as it continues to try
to destroy Ed Snowden, " Secretary of State John Kerry, along with UN
nominee Samantha Powers,
is threatening acts of war with Venezuela. The US has already violated
international law by forcing down the plane of the Bolivian president.
And now, President Obama is saying he may derail talks with Russian
President Putin over Snowden." Writing for the Boston Globe, former US Senator John Sununu notes some of the issues involved in Ed Snowden's disclosures:

Completely lost in this sea of ambivalence are the most important
issues at stake: In their current form, what do these programs say about
our society and our willingness to forgo what only a few years ago
would be considered basic principles of personal privacy? Are we, in the
momentous words of Franklin, sacrificing “essential liberty to purchase
a little temporary security” and therefore deserving of neither? And
once the sacrifice is made, can we ever go back?You don’t have to condone Snowden’s leaks to believe that we are on a disturbing path.

Government power to demand vast troves of business
records was at the heart of the filibuster I led to stop proceedings on
the Patriot Act in 2005. We argued that the threshold for obtaining
so-called “Section 215 subpoenas” — which grant access to a broad
variety of business records and other material without judicial approval
— was too low, that the gag order preventing business owners from
talking to anyone about these subpoenas was too harsh, and that
congressional oversight of the entire process was nonexistent.

Writing as “CNN Terrorism Analyst,” Hayden read from the unctuous
script previously used by “Meet the Press” host David Gregory on June 23
when he questioned Greenwald’s status as a journalist. Hayden claimed
Greenwald deserves “the Justice Department’s characterization of a
co-conspirator.”But the principal target of Hayden’s ire was Snowden. After lumping
him together with despicable characters like CIA’s Aldrich Ames, Robert
Hanssen of the FBI, and others who spied for the U.S.S.R. – and then
disparaging “leakers” like Bradley Manning – Hayden wrote, “Snowden is in a class by himself.”But it is Michael Hayden who is in a class by himself. He was the
first NSA director to betray the country’s trust by ordering wholesale
violation of what was once the First Commandment at NSA: “Thou Shalt Not
Eavesdrop on Americans Without a Court Warrant.” Not to mention playing
fast and loose with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.While Hayden has implicitly offered a second-grader kind of excuse,
that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney “made me do
it,” that does not let Hayden off the hook.I have found it helpful lately to read the one-sentence Fourth
Amendment during TV and radio interviews in order to provide necessary
context and a backdrop against which viewers/listeners can gauge how the
recent revelations about NSA operations comport, or do not, with the
strictures in the amendment. Thankfully, the language is pretty
straightforward and specific:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.

Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and
counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and
killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding
cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and
third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I
believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had
access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A
tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military
and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of
time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate
the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the
people living in the effected environment everyday.

For truth telling, Brad's being punished by the man who fears truth:
Barack Obama. A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack
is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and
every whistle-blower. David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate
of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and
'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of
classified information, is in reality something very different: a
vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for
doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."

Michael Ratner: Sadly and unfortunately and to me shockingly, the
judge upheld the charge against Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy. I
thought there was no evidence at all that he had actual knowledge that
documents he was giving to WikiLeaks would go to "the enemy." But the
judge felt otherwise. I want to put the judge's decision in quick
context. It was on a motion to dismiss the charges and in that case the
judge has a very low standard. She takes all of the evidence put in by
the government as true, she doesn't take the defense evidence into
consideration and she has inferences favorable to the government that
she draws. So it doesn't mean that she will necessarily convict Bradley
Manning at the end of the trial but it doesn't bode well. In my view,
there was simply no evidence to say that Bradley Manning had actual
knowledge that al Qaeda or al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would read
these documents. In addition, and finally on this point, the judge
ruled out that Bradley Manning had to have the specific intent to aid al
Qaeda and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I think that's required
by the statute. She said that it wasn't required. I think she'll be
reversed on appeal if she upholds the conviction in this case but that's
a long time to wait. The deleterious effects, already, of a decision
like that on both whistle-blowing in the army as well as calling
journalists and publishers like WikiLeaks or for that matter the New
York Times and others as an indirect way of aiding the enemy tells us
about the government's efforts to completely end any kind of
transparency in this country -- a serious blow to free speech, democracy
and informed citizens.

Emily Bazelon (Slate via Winnipeg Free Press) explains:To justify Thursday’s ruling, prosecutors argued that "the evidence
will show that the accused knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy."
The proof was that some of the documents, once online, reached Osama bin
Laden and were found on his computer. In other words, by giving the
information to WikiLeaks, Manning was giving it to the terrorists. This
is a shockingly broad interpretation of a law that was written too
sweepingly. It implicates all kinds of people who publish things that
could hurt U.S. interests by tarnishing our image abroad.Journalists do this routinely; So do plenty of people on social media. It’s called free speech.Most of the critics have no
access to the kinds of damaging goods that Manning had. But now when
they do, they will have to fear that publishing it is the legal
equivalent of deliberately handing it to terrorists. As Benkler points
out, it doesn’t matter if the publishing platform is WikiLeaks or The New York Times
or Twitter. And this theory of aiding the enemy "is unprecedented in
modern American history." You have to go back to the Civil War, and a
case in which a Union officer gave a newspaper in Virginia rosters of
Union soldiers, to find a case like Manning’s.

Rem Rieder (USA Today) voices similar sentiments:Pursuing the "aiding the enemy" charge smacks more of revenge than
justice. It's part of the Obama administration's record-breaking,
way-too-enthusiastic and totally inappropriate use of the Espionage Act
to go after leakers. It has prosecuted seven current or former
government employees under the act. That's more than all previous
administrations combined.Mainstream journalists, not to mention
all citizens who care about their access to important information, can
take no solace in the fact that Manning is being prosecuted for leaking
to the renegade outfit WikiLeaks rather than a traditional news outlet.

The trailblazing journalist Helen Thomas has died at the age of
92. Widely known as "the dean of the White House press corps," Thomas
became the first woman assigned to the White House full-time by a news
service when she began to cover the Kennedy administration. She went on
to cover every president since until controversial comments on the
Israel-Palestine conflict forced her to retire in 2010. Throughout the
two-term Bush administration, she asked some of the most critical
questions in the White House press newsroom. She challenged the
administration on issues including the Iraq War and its massive civilian
toll, the threat of an attack on Iran, the refusal to sign a cluster
bomb treaty, the ongoing killings of Afghanistan civilians, and its
critical support for Israel’s attacks on Gaza and Lebanon. In July 2007,
President George W. Bush reverted to a presidential press conference
tradition he had long ignored: giving Thomas the first question.

President George W. Bush: "Now, I will be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms. Thomas."

Helen Thomas: "Mr. President, you started this war, a
war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point,
bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled
their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and
thousands are dead. Don’t you understand? You have brought the al-Qaeda
into Iraq."

President George W. Bush: "Actually, I was hoping to
solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That’s why I went to the United
Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which
unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face
serious consequences. That was the message, a clear message to Saddam
Hussein. He chose the course."

Helen Thomas: "Didn’t we go into Iraq..."

President George W. Bush: "It was his decision."

Earlier that year, Democracy Now! interviewed Thomas at the Media
Reform Conference in Memphis. I asked her for her take on the
consolidation of media control by a small number of corporations.

Helen Thomas: "I’d tell them, forget about all those
profits, and help the country, that the media should be a public
service. You cannot have a democracy without an informed people. And
that should be their role. They can make their money everywhere else."